Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:19:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #86
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/86
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:

Re: RV Cam in a 460 [John Macnamara ]
Bedliner [Jim Bovenmyer 4-6640
Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage [Ken Payne ]
Split Fire ["James A. Doty" ]
Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage [Jonathan Martin
Re: Split Fire [Jonathan Martin
RE: Rear End Gear Oil ["Ryan Penner" ]
RE: 97 F-350 pulls ["Ryan Penner" ]
Wiring Diagram [bizpro Bellsouth.net ]
Re: Temperature Gauge diagnosis [Michael & Linda Waak
Re: Wiring Diagram [Michael & Linda Waak
Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage [JIM HURD ]
Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage [Randy Zeilinger
F150 Hesitation ?? [Phil Conrad
Slick 50 [Michael & Linda Waak
Re: Slick 50 [Michael & Linda Waak
Slick 50, apology [Ken Payne ]
RE: 1983 F100 gas mileage [DC Beatty

Administrivia:

____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________________


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 14:00:46 -0700
From: John Macnamara
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: RV Cam in a 460
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Abajo, Ed wrote:
>
> Hello all, I'm a long time lurker first time poster...
>
> I have a 1973 F-250 with a 460 engine. When I purchased the truck in
> September '94, I was told that the original owner had a RV cam
> installed and the stock differential replaced with a 4.11 differential
> (the VIN tag says it came from the factory with something else). Any
> ideas on how I can confirm this configuration without major disassembly?
> I looked for a tag on the differential but didn't see anything. I have
> no idea how to check for a different cam. Since I am planning to change
> the differential fluid soon and it appears that I need to remove the
> rear cover (there is no drain plug on it), can I determine the ratio at
> that time? If so, how (and do I need any special tools?) My main use
> for this truck is to pull a heavy boat trailer (+8000 lb.) so I think I
> really need the 4.11 gear ratio.
>
> Also, does a RV cam imply any alterations to the tune-up specs? Anything
> else I should know about it (like how it help in towing?) Lastly, the
> truck has 9.50x16.5 LT tires --- when it comes time to replace them,
> should I get the same or look at a different size? What and why?
>
> Ed Abajo
> 1973 F-250
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

Ed: You can check the gear ratio easily. Turn the rear tire one
complete revolution and count the number of turns on the driveshaft
yoke. If the driveshaft yoke turns slightly over 4 turns, voila, 4.10
ratio.

My first F250 had an rv cam and it matched up well with the 4.10 ratio.
Currently I have a Supercab with 3.55 gears. When I built my 460 I used
a 260 degree cam so I would have more bottom end with the taller gears.

As far as tire sizes, if the motor pulls the boat the way you like leave
the tire size alone. Obviously taller tires decreases the effective
axle ration and it might pull you out of your optimun torque curve.

John
78 F250 4X4 Supercab
67 GT500

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:47:07 -0500
From: Jim Bovenmyer 4-6640
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Bedliner
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-MD5: JAsUpkspv6nK524NIDs6Jg==

Yep I was one of those suckered into getting the bedliner. It has been in the
bed of my 94 Ranger since it was new. Does anyone have any ideas as to
something to keep the liner from shifting?

--Jim

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 18:08:41 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

-snip-

> g)Add Slick50 or Rislone to your engine.
> h)Many more I just cant think of right now!
>
>Harry.
>

Oh God, I know I'm opening a can of worms here but I've got to reply.

Last fall the Federal Trade Commission fined Quaker State/Slick 50
for false advertising. They said that Slick 50 could not back a single
claim and that all government tests showed that Slick 50 did _not_
reduce start-up wear, did _not_ increase the life of an engine and
did _not_ reduce friction. Slick 50 is no longer advertising these
claims since the government fine. Also, the FTC is investigating
Slick 50 for consumer fraud - basically they've been doing what the
chemists have been insisting for years - ripping people off. Teflon
does not bond to metal. There is no chemical additive which will make
it bond to metal. The way teflon is bonded is by using a combination
of high temperature and pressure, neither of which exist in sufficient
quantities in the engine areas that Slick 50 claims to bond to (bearing
surfaces, etc). If the heat and pressure sufficient to bond teflon existed
in those areas you would spin a bearing or do other severe engine
damage. In addition, teflon turns into an acid under intense heat
(under the piston, around the valves, etc). Dupont tried years ago to
stop sales of teflon to Slick 50 because Dupont's testing showing that
teflon may harm the engine by clogging the oil filter and oil return
passages. Slick 50 won a restraint of trade case but for a while they could
not use the trademark "teflon" instead they used "PFTE". Also, Slick 50
has _never_ published their so-called "independent lab tests", the
only thing they've said is "tests prove it". Where's the beef? If
anyone is in doubt of what I've just said, I can provide you with the
government web address where the FTC has published this information and
the famous "snake oil" article address. The "snake oil" article goes
further and basically puts Duralube and similar products in the same
camp as Slick 50. Basically the only thing slick about any of these
products is the marketing.

I know I've probably started a flame war with this one but I've always
believed that friends don't let friends put Slick 50 in their engines.

Ken (zipping up asbestos suit)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 15:12:28 -0700
From: "James A. Doty"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Split Fire
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi gang:

I'm thinking of doing a complete tuneup within the next couple of weeks.

I've heard some talk about the Split Fire spark plugs.

I'm looking for opinions both good and bad. I realize Split Fire's
cost more than standard plugs but I don't know anything else about them.

The engine's a 351W (I think. I hear a lot of talk 'bout the 351M being
used a lot in the '70's.)

Is there an easy way to tell the 351W from the 351M? The van's a '78 E-150.

Tnx
======================
James A. Doty
Assistant Web Master
jamesd e-z.net
E-Z Net, Inc.
209 NE 120th. Ave., Suite B
Vancouver, WA 98684
(360) 260-1122
KI7EL

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 18:57:22 -0400
From: Jonathan Martin
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > g)Add Slick50 or Rislone to your engine.
> > h)Many more I just cant think of right now!
> >
> >Harry.
> >
>
> Oh God, I know I'm opening a can of worms here but I've got to reply.
>
> Last fall the Federal Trade Commission fined Quaker State/Slick 50
> for false advertising. They said that Slick 50 could not back a single
> claim and that all government tests showed that Slick 50 did _not_
> reduce start-up wear, did _not_ increase the life of an engine and
> did _not_ reduce friction. Slick 50 is no longer advertising these
> claims since the government fine. Also, the FTC is investigating
> Slick 50 for consumer fraud - basically they've been doing what the
> chemists have been insisting for years - ripping people off. Teflon
> does not bond to metal. There is no chemical additive which will make
> it bond to metal. The way teflon is bonded is by using a combination
> of high temperature and pressure, neither of which exist in sufficient
> quantities in the engine areas that Slick 50 claims to bond to (bearing
> surfaces, etc). If the heat and pressure sufficient to bond teflon existed
> in those areas you would spin a bearing or do other severe engine
> damage. In addition, teflon turns into an acid under intense heat
> (under the piston, around the valves, etc). Dupont tried years ago to
> stop sales of teflon to Slick 50 because Dupont's testing showing that
> teflon may harm the engine by clogging the oil filter and oil return
> passages. Slick 50 won a restraint of trade case but for a while they could
> not use the trademark "teflon" instead they used "PFTE". Also, Slick 50
> has _never_ published their so-called "independent lab tests", the
> only thing they've said is "tests prove it". Where's the beef? If
> anyone is in doubt of what I've just said, I can provide you with the
> government web address where the FTC has published this information and
> the famous "snake oil" article address. The "snake oil" article goes
> further and basically puts Duralube and similar products in the same
> camp as Slick 50. Basically the only thing slick about any of these
> products is the marketing.
>
> I know I've probably started a flame war with this one but I've always
> believed that friends don't let friends put Slick 50 in their engines.
>
> Ken (zipping up asbestos suit)


I agree with you on the SLick 50, but I've heard good things about
"Prolong" You know anything about it?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 19:35:16 -0400
From: Jonathan Martin
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Split Fire
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

James A. Doty wrote:
>
> Hi gang:
>
> I'm thinking of doing a complete tuneup within the next couple of weeks.
>
> I've heard some talk about the Split Fire spark plugs.
>
> I'm looking for opinions both good and bad. I realize Split Fire's
> cost more than standard plugs but I don't know anything else about them.
>
> The engine's a 351W (I think. I hear a lot of talk 'bout the 351M being
> used a lot in the '70's.)
>
> Is there an easy way to tell the 351W from the 351M? The van's a '78 E-150.
>
> Tnx
> ======================
> James A. Doty
> Assistant Web Master
> jamesd e-z.net
> E-Z Net, Inc.
> 209 NE 120th. Ave., Suite B
> Vancouver, WA 98684
> (360) 260-1122
> KI7EL
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

I think the Splitfire are probably better, but the only reason they're
so expensive is because they are patented and no one else can make them.
I know some company I forget who it is makes a V-plug that probably does
the same thing as a splitfire there is just no actual space in the
electrode. But there is a dip so there is furthur spark travel.

Jonathan Martin
'77 F150 460

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 97 03:57:08 UT
From: "Ryan Penner"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: RE: Rear End Gear Oil
Message-Id:

I was wondering about this myself. Mine grinds when shifting from 3rd to
4th, and sometimes just while it's in 3rd. It's not gears grinding -- it
seems more like a bad thrust bearing or something.

This is the syncromesh from what I have been told, which has gotten worn from
shifting to fast. This is a common problem, because my dad who owns about 10
ford pickups, some of them have this same problem.
So its not a good idea to shift fast.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 97 03:57:37 UT
From: "Ryan Penner"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: RE: 97 F-350 pulls
Message-Id:

I can say that these trucks are sensitive to front tire wear
and need rotated alot so they drive good.

My Ford dealer, along with some tire stores said every 5,000 miles,
or you get the outside edges all messed up on the tires.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 19:41:47 -0400
From: bizpro Bellsouth.net
To: Fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Wiring Diagram
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Ford Truck Enthusiasts,

I just found this list and hope that someone can direct me to a site on the WWW
where I can view and/or download the wiring diagram for a 1981 Bronco.

Need to troubleshoot the rear window solenoid and wiring. Any help on this area
will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.

Regards

Bill

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:53:21 -0800
From: Michael & Linda Waak
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Temperature Gauge diagnosis
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I've got a 1978 F150 w/460 and the coolant temperature gauge doesn't work.
>How do I isolate which part is at fault (i.e. sender or gauge)? I remember
>reading someplace that you ground the wire that attaches to the sender and
>see if the gauge goes up...is that correct? Thanks for any and all help.
>
>Kevin Lindstedt
>1978 F150 Ranger Lariat Styleside 460/C6
>
>
Yes, You are correct. If the gauge goes up when you ground-out the
wire you have a bad sending unit.

M

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:03:41 -0800
From: Michael & Linda Waak
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Wiring Diagram
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Hello Ford Truck Enthusiasts,
>
>I just found this list and hope that someone can direct me to a site on
>the WWW
>where I can view and/or download the wiring diagram for a 1981 Bronco.
>
>Need to troubleshoot the rear window solenoid and wiring. Any help on this
>area
>will be appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.
>
>Regards
>
>Bill
>

My brother is on the "Big-Bronco" listserver, I think you can find info on
it in"Yahoo"
or maybe someone here has the URL for it.

There is probabley someone there who has had the same problem that can help you
right out

I think that would be a better forum as this list seems mainly to be F
series trucks.

Good Luck!!

M

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:06:18 -0500 (EST)
From: JIM HURD
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Harry,
Anything in your Physics book about Slick50?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:44:58 -0400
From: Randy Zeilinger
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > g)Add Slick50 or Rislone to your engine.
> > h)Many more I just cant think of right now!
> >
> >Harry.
> >
>
> Oh God, I know I'm opening a can of worms here but I've got to reply.
>
> Last fall the Federal Trade Commission fined Quaker State/Slick 50
> for false advertising. They said that Slick 50 could not back a single
> claim and that all government tests showed that Slick 50 did _not_
> reduce start-up wear, did _not_ increase the life of an engine and
> did _not_ reduce friction. Slick 50 is no longer advertising these
> claims since the government fine. Also, the FTC is investigating
> Slick 50 for consumer fraud - basically they've been doing what the
> chemists have been insisting for years - ripping people off. Teflon
> does not bond to metal. There is no chemical additive which will make
> it bond to metal. The way teflon is bonded is by using a combination
> of high temperature and pressure, neither of which exist in sufficient
> quantities in the engine areas that Slick 50 claims to bond to (bearing
> surfaces, etc). If the heat and pressure sufficient to bond teflon existed
> in those areas you would spin a bearing or do other severe engine
> damage. In addition, teflon turns into an acid under intense heat
> (under the piston, around the valves, etc). Dupont tried years ago to
> stop sales of teflon to Slick 50 because Dupont's testing showing that
> teflon may harm the engine by clogging the oil filter and oil return
> passages. Slick 50 won a restraint of trade case but for a while they could
> not use the trademark "teflon" instead they used "PFTE". Also, Slick 50
> has _never_ published their so-called "independent lab tests", the
> only thing they've said is "tests prove it". Where's the beef? If
> anyone is in doubt of what I've just said, I can provide you with the
> government web address where the FTC has published this information and
> the famous "snake oil" article address. The "snake oil" article goes
> further and basically puts Duralube and similar products in the same
> camp as Slick 50. Basically the only thing slick about any of these
> products is the marketing.
>
> I know I've probably started a flame war with this one but I've always
> believed that friends don't let friends put Slick 50 in their engines.
>
> Ken (zipping up asbestos suit)
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

I guess that explains why I have been seeing a "special" package of
Quaker State and Slick 50 for a reduced price at the local parts
"super-market".

I hope the oil I got for this weekends change is acceptable.

Randy Z.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:59:41 -0700
From: Phil Conrad
To: "'fordtrucks lofcom.com'"
Subject: F150 Hesitation ??
Message-Id:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC5722.9D548D80"

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5722.9D548D80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am having a problem with hesitation off the line with an F150. I =
have an F150, 302, 1992, with 158K miles, auto trans with OD. I have =
developed a hesitation off the line, rough ideal, when I take off from a =
light the truck jumps then wants to stall then jumps again and takes =
off. I also notice a throttle oscillation while feathering the pedal, =
like on the freeway and hesitation while going up hills.

Just to let you know, the fuel filter and air filter have been changed =
but the small PCV filter has not. Could this be causing my problem or =
is it fuel related ? What about fuel pressure, dist. advance, =
transmission vacuum or anything else..

Any help is appreciated.

Phil Conrad
phil infostreet.com=20


------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5722.9D548D80
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

eJ8+IiwAAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG
ACQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAEkAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd
AQ9UAgAAAABmb3JkdHJ1Y2tzQGxvZmNvbS5jb20AU01UUABmb3JkdHJ1Y2tzQGxvZmNvbS5jb20A
AAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABYAAABmb3JkdHJ1Y2tzQGxvZmNvbS5jb20A
AAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAYAAAAJ2ZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbScAAgEL
MAEAAAAbAAAAU01UUDpGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQExPRkNPTS5DT00AAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYP
AQAAAAQAAAAAAAAD0jcBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAFAAA
AEYxNTAgIEhlc2l0YXRpb24gPz8A0gUBBYADAA4AAADNBwUAAgARADsAKQAFAFUBASCAAwAOAAAA
zQcFAAIAEQA4ADUABQBeAQEJgAEAIQAAAEUyN0IxMDAzODRDMUQwMTE4MDI5MDAwMEMwQjAxMTJF
ALsGAQOQBgBgBAAAEgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5ACBVa0hd
V7wBHgBwAAEAAAAUAAAARjE1MCAgSGVzaXRhdGlvbiA/PwACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvFddSFIDEHvj
wYQR0IApAADAsBEuAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAFAAAAHBoaWxAaW5mb3N0
cmVldC5jb20AAwAGEKtR/VMDAAcQNwIAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElBTUhBVklOR0FQUk9CTEVNV0lU
SEhFU0lUQVRJT05PRkZUSEVMSU5FV0lUSEFORjE1MElIQVZFQU5GMTUwLDMwMiwxOTkyLFdJVEgx
NThLTUlMRVMsQVVUT1RSQU5TV0lUSE8AAAAAAgEJEAEAAADwAgAA7AIAANAEAABMWkZ10szvN/8A
CgEPAhUCqAXrAoMAUALyCQIAY2gKwHNldDI3BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVtAoMztwLkBxMC
gzQSzBTFfQqAiwjPCdk7F58yNTUCgAcKgQ2xC2BuZzEwM18UUAsKFFEL8hNQbxPQY0EFQEkgYW0g
EYB2bQuAZwrhG3tjAEAc0CCXHEECYBPgIAPwdGgdACMHkB9gYXRpAiAgb8UN0CAfcGUgbAuAILAP
G18cZB9TA5FGMTUw/i4djx6QJIEhLxxmHREgsEEi5SwgMzAyJxAxHDk5J1EfUyMgOEsgDm0DEAeQ
JxBhdXRvjSCAcgYiH1NPRC4kge8mNQ2wJnAXMHAJgB6hH6+nILQnEANgdWcfgGkNsL8HQCfBK4AD
oBzAAZBrILD/IFIDUh6hINAtQAVAIJIpQAB1Y2sganVtcNcEICCRA6B3AHB0MJEpIJ8TwAdAAyAw
szBUYWcLcX8i0StALlIEICBRKhEcwWzKcykgbhxgaWMmgSCB/RxRdB8QIEAE8AMQC2Ar4/8t4CiR
LtAtkCCRBRAdUSCS/yshLaIg0C5yA6AgkgNQCeCdMQB5MvMriTZUZ28dQsx1cB0ANcFzLgqFCoW8
SnUTwDFSHxAFQHkIYPQgazRwdycQOJMKUAMg/mYDEBPQBcAzAgtwBcA+ZT5oI28ekSZwJM8cZCBi
3QnhIBFxGqArMWIpACCDRnMAwDHBUENWP0dh7wQgNHEqEghRbDMhNmAEIN9CsELwKPAAkB1RbTkw
HtZ/BbFGQR9gPgQXoDXhKzE//SSBVxGABUABoAhgSEUTUG0HkHMIcCzhZAQARXFh/GR2AHA0sD2x
KVIogAQQzyASP98ekEuQY3UwYCS/9xxVBbEAcHlGIR1RKvARsNouO41BUCArcWw7EEZBvGFwSnE1
sEjiO41QNmFVRbFuKVBkCoVwNmFA/wuAAhATwAnRRXAFoBzwO5wvGw8cGVcVFsEAWfADABAQAAAA
AAMAERAAAAAAQAAHMCCIC+RcV7wBQAAIMCCIC+RcV7wBHgA9AAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAKwz

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5722.9D548D80--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:06:18 -0800
From: Michael & Linda Waak
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Slick 50
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hey folks'

Since Ken kinda started this,

I dont mean fer you all to lose what little respect I have in this bar, but
my family has been using Slick since it was an MLM product. Before
QS ruined the stuff.

I've used it in every car I have ever owned (I'm 33) and I've never had
an oil related failure. (Bent 4 pushrods in a Chrysler 440 ((There I said
it the C word)) but thats another story).

What I'm saying is that I don't know why or if it works but as for me I'll
still buy/use it in all my cars/trucks, foreign/domestic until they pry the
from
my hands.

Thank you for your time. Flames can be sent to BClinton Whitehouse.Gov

M

Putting soapbox away for another week. NOT
Beertender Set 'em up!!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:15:53 -0800
From: Michael & Linda Waak
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Slick 50
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Sorry I didn't proof my last one beforeI got it (rant repaired).


>Hey folks'
>
>Since Ken kinda started this,
>
>I dont mean fer you all to lose what little respect I have in this bar, but
>my family has been using Slick since it was an MLM product. Before
>QS ruined the stuff.
>
>I've used it in every car I have ever owned (I'm 33) and I've never had
>an oil related failure. (Bent 4 pushrods in a Chrysler 440 ((There I said
>it the C word)) but thats another story).
>
>What I'm saying is that I don't know why or if it works but as for me I'll
>still buy/use it in all my cars/trucks, foreign/domestic until they pry the
>last bottle from my hands.
>
>
>Thank you for your time. Flames can be sent to BClinton Whitehouse.Gov
>
>M
>
>Putting soapbox away for another week. NOT
>Beertender Set 'em up!!
>


Primerica Financial Services > Yesterday is a cancelled check,
Michael D. Waak
"The Crusaders" > Today is cash, USE IT WISELY!!
mikewaak jps.net

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 22:40:00 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Slick 50, apology
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I should not have opened my big mouth about Slick 50. Sorry. I
realize there are die-hard people on both sides of the fence. What
I've done is put links to the Snake Oil article and FTC press
release on the web page.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks

Follow the "links and news" link. In the spirit of fairness I
invite anyone who has links to any rebuttals or lab test results
to send them to me and I'll put them on the site ASAP. I know that
Slick 50's president did have a web based rebuttal of the Snake
Oil article but I don't know the URL. By putting this stuff on
the page everyone can draw their own conclusions. If you want
to keep discussing it that's ok. I just checked the charter and I
left something _very_ important out -> that topics on this list
are _not_ moderated - the topics are completely up to the members
so long as they don't go against the spirit of our charter.

Someone emailed me a message about a 1997 F150 email list, I followed
the link and it's a list that covers only 1997 F150s. However, I've
lost the original email so I no longer have the address. Can anyone
help? I'd like to get in touch with their admin to exchange web links
as I believe it will help both lists.

-Ken Payne
1967 Ford F100 Custom Cab, 390 FE V8
List maintainer, send me comments and suggestions.
Visit the Ford Truck Enthusiast List Web Page (unsubscribe
form is there): http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks

------------------------------

Date: 02 May 97 22:56:37 EDT
From: DC Beatty
To: "'FORD TRUCKS'"
Subject: RE: 1983 F100 gas mileage
Message-ID:

I have also heard claims lately of a product called "RK 44" being able to soak
into bearings, cylinder walls, etc. Yeah...right.

If folks want to use stuff like this, than that's great. I don't see a need
myself. My personal belief is that a properly serviced and maintained engine can
go for 200k miles or more without any of these "magic goo" substances.

Again, just personal belief.

DC Beatty (non-scientist)
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

----------
From: Randy Zeilinger
Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 6:48 PM
To: INTERNET:FORDTRUCKS LOFCOM.COM
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage

Sender: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
Received: from t3.media3.net (t3.media3.net [208.5.7.1]) by
dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id UAA01678; Fri, 2 May 1997 20:44:38 -0400
Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id UAA23939; Fri,
2 May 1997 20:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:44:58 -0400
From: Randy Zeilinger
Organization: CHAOS
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-AIT (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Precedence: list
X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > g)Add Slick50 or Rislone to your engine.
> > h)Many more I just cant think of right now!
> >
> >Harry.
> >
>
> Oh God, I know I'm opening a can of worms here but I've got to reply.
>
> Last fall the Federal Trade Commission fined Quaker State/Slick 50
> for false advertising. They said that Slick 50 could not back a single
> claim and that all government tests showed that Slick 50 did _not_
> reduce start-up wear, did _not_ increase the life of an engine and
> did _not_ reduce friction. Slick 50 is no longer advertising these
> claims since the government fine. Also, the FTC is investigating
> Slick 50 for consumer fraud - basically they've been doing what the
> chemists have been insisting for years - ripping people off. Teflon
> does not bond to metal. There is no chemical additive which will make
> it bond to metal. The way teflon is bonded is by using a combination
> of high temperature and pressure, neither of which exist in sufficient
> quantities in the engine areas that Slick 50 claims to bond to (bearing
> surfaces, etc). If the heat and pressure sufficient to bond teflon existed
> in those areas you would spin a bearing or do other severe engine
> damage. In addition, teflon turns into an acid under intense heat
> (under the piston, around the valves, etc). Dupont tried years ago to
> stop sales of teflon to Slick 50 because Dupont's testing showing that
> teflon may harm the engine by clogging the oil filter and oil return
> passages. Slick 50 won a restraint of trade case but for a while they could
> not use the trademark "teflon" instead they used "PFTE". Also, Slick 50
> has _never_ published their so-called "independent lab tests", the
> only thing they've said is "tests prove it". Where's the beef? If
> anyone is in doubt of what I've just said, I can provide you with the
> government web address where the FTC has published this information and
> the famous "snake oil" article address. The "snake oil" article goes
> further and basically puts Duralube and similar products in the same
> camp as Slick 50. Basically the only thing slick about any of these
> products is the marketing.
>
> I know I've probably started a flame war with this one but I've always....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.